 |
May 21, 2007Oh MyIsn't this interesting (albeit woefully predictable)? And this? Oh, and I know Fred Kagan says the surge is going rather swimmingly (coming out of his Prince Myshkin moment), but others (with far more credibility) evidently disagree. Commentary on all these related items as soon as time allows. I'll try not to be overly scathing, though it's increasingly hard not to be when dealing with a hugely incompetent "banana republic" Administration (noted crackpot lefty & America hater George Will's phrase on This Week w/ George S. yesterday), that must be dragged kicking and screaming--much like an indignant child--towards rational policy decisions. As a result, it's always too little, too late. And we, the American people (not to mention the rest of the world), prove the consistent losers. Not to mention, of course, the 21 American servicemen who've died over the past 72 hours, dying for a chimerical "victory" plan that is unrealizable, one ginned up amateurishly at a discredited think-tank. We want to "win" this war and control the battle-space convincingly? Show me another 200,000 troops then, if this is WWIV, and re-institute the draft while you're at it too, but don't insult us with a 28,000 drop in the bucket, so we keep playing whack-a-mole and men die while Washington fiddles disgracefully ferreting about for a war 'czar' (isn't this the Commander-in-Chief, aided by his NSC Advisor?), still with no overiding strategy (within Iraq itself, or regionally) to exit a failed intervention. As I said, more soon, including why our vital interests (no genocide, no regionalization of the conflict, no al-Qaeda sanctuary--none of them require this ill-fated surge). Posted by Gregory at May 21, 2007 01:23 PMComments
Maybe you missed Campbell's conditional "if reductions in casualties is a criterion". Well, how about by other criterion? The tribal chieves are expelling al-Qaeda in Anbar at least partly because Americans protected Sunni Baghdadians, and Sistani is sustaining against Sadr. Who could ask for anything more? 
Kim is what happens when you link to Maguire AND Sullivan, Greg. please don't do it again. Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 21, 2007 02:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hey, luk, I found in your research that the French discovered an active black market in Yellow Cake in Africa in 1999. Displaying that elephant for marcy cleared me out of her room.
I err, it was eRiposte's research. You back it up.
Is there anything but ad homs in this dispatch? It seems, as at many other places, it is the first response, sort of instinctive. But, you know; sticks and stones and so on. So far, I feel straw, not sticks.
Don't really like the prospect of an evolving scenario in the city and the boonies, huh?
I got a much better discussion elsewhere from someone who thought the chiefs just want to clean house and it has nothing to do with our helping their city mouse kin. And he wasn't so sure as I am that the Badr move to Sistani is a rejection of the mullahs. What do you think, p. luk? Or do you?
Is kim for real? He’s like one of those right-wing nihilists that love the aesthetic homoeroticism of war and fascism.
What kim said. By the "casualties" measure Britain must consider the Normandy invasion a failure. Any idea that the Nazis are not still in power in Germany must be an illusion. There must still be V-2s raining down on people's heads in London but the government is covering it all up... Posted by: Solomon2 at May 21, 2007 04:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
Solomon2, And the Soviets won Afghanistan! I mean they lost more soldiers in WW2 and won that conflict, therefore…
Hey, SoD, if that ad hom had any sting it would be a projectile instead of a projection.
So anyway, we agree we don't know what casualties are the measure of.
How about other criteria, like winning the hearts and minds of the Sunni Arabs, and the grudging condescension of the Shia death squads.
Aiming high with that last point in particular there. Posted by: Ned R. at May 21, 2007 04:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ned, by last point do you mean mine or our host's about 'vital interests'. If mine, I take what I can get and trust in Sistani. He is quiet, and a quietist. If our host's, yes, I'm dismayed, too.
Apparently there is some need to sneer at a diplomatic 'surge', too. Does anyone prefer 'other means'?
kim, After reading your comments on torture and your rather spirited and eloquent defense of depravity and noble and brave embrace of degeneracy, I gather you have a rather seductively wicked sense for war and mass death. Posted by: someotherdude at May 21, 2007 05:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
And what is this with seeing no alternative between status quo and declaring World War IV and drafting the unwilling? Is this hyperbole or failure of imagination? How about better supporting the few volunteers who are making a sacrifice? Now, I know your post was quick, and spouting from bias is a lot easier than examining a changing situation, but I'm unimpressed. And so far, among your adverse commenters, I've come across barely any who didn't start out with an ad hominem. Nonetheless, the waterboarding was fun. Let's do it again, soon.
Great, neill and Liberty Dad appear to be trolling about again. Posted by: ugh at May 21, 2007 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
SOD, remember what I said about projection. You depersonalize curiosity; recoil at contemplation of evil. You mistake examination for acceptance. Why?
lower case, but not bad. Thanks. That's how I feel.
Kim, 3:24 PM: "Is there anything but ad homs in this dispatch?" Kim, 3:53 PM: "What do you think, p. luk? Or do you?"
That particular ad hom, J, bounced off me and has apparently slain p. luk. Friendly fire casualty, I assure you. Don't let him near any grenade launchers.
And it amuses me, J, that you think pointing out a logical fallacy constitutes an ad hominem. In this case it pointed out that 'the man' wasn't thinking. Yo mama knows that.
Half a yo mama knows p. luk. deserved an insult.
What about Anbar and Diyala; what about Badr and where is Sadr?
No, son, I mean, where is Sadr, spiritually. He's been over the border for months, not too long after Sistani quit contesting him politically and directed his efforts spirtually.
Ah, j, I see. Well, too precious, by much. You, too, cede a scenario.
What we have here is a serious case of obsession. Worse than mine, actually, which is saying something. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 06:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
I presume, by the way, that everyone else noticed yesterday's prominent headlines? (1) White House says that, gee, there might have been something in that Iraq Study Group after all: (2) Al-Sadr tells his followers that, after the Americans are evicted from Iraq, the crucial next step is to kick al-Qaida the hell out of all of Iraq:
Have you just now figured out that Sadr was not in cahoots with al Qaeda? So much for obsession.
Maybe Sistani asked Sadr to make common cause with the Sunni. Or maybe the idea just came to him from Allah.
My point, Kim ---as should be obvious -- was that the horror stories we keep hearing about how, if we pull out of Iraq, al-Qaida will set up large anti-American terrorist bases there is pure hooey. They will have, shall we say, other priorities. Such as running for their lives. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 07:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
I'm much less worried about a general bloodbath there than I was just a few months ago. We'll be refereeing there for awhile, until Sistani can hold the Persians and the Wahabbi at bay by himself. He appreciates a fair cop, and likes that we step lively and carry a big whistle. Were you one of the multitude who predicted the Cambodian killing fields?
Yes, I'm confident that Sistani will be able to keep al-Sadr and the other Iranian sympathizers among the violent Shiite militia under control, given that his own aides have been saying for some time that he despairs of the task and has become less and less interested in politics in general as a result. And, no, I didn't predict the Cambodian killing fields. Neither did the Nixon and Ford Administrations, as you'll discover if you review their statements at the time. They expected a considerably less murderous -- though still ruthless -- North Vietnamese-type regime. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 07:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
Is 'kim' responding to anything anyone has said? His comments read like somebody in the midst of some severe cognitive difficulty.... Posted by: sglover at May 22, 2007 07:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
You misunderestimate Sistani, Bruce. 6-8 months ago he expressed frustration at his impact politically, and chose to confine himself to spiritual questions. I figured out he was tired of playing on Sadr's chessboard, and engaged him on his own. Now Sadr's over the border, the Badr Brigades have thrown in with Sistani, and the Sunni sheiks are now taking our cause against al-Qaeda, at least partly because we defended their city cousins from Shia death squads. And now you tell me Sadr want to throw out al-Qaeda from all of Iraq? In Sistani we Trust. He is quiet, and a quietist. It looks to me like he is pulling the endgame together. sg, out of my head and over yours.
What?! No safe haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. This is big news, don't ya' know. Read Bob Kerrey in today's Opinion Journal.
I smell moderate Islam, represented by Sistani, telling both Shia and Sunni radicals that they are beyond the pale. I wouldn't be surprised if the Saud Abdullah has a finger in it, too. And the mullahs shortened Ahmadinejad's rope.
Why, Bruce. It should be 'obvious', that we need not fear a holocaust in Iraq if we leave. But why do you make my obvious point for me, that the Killing Fields weren't predicted? Hunh?
Tell me what you know about al-Masri and Fatah Islam, please. Why Foley?
Khan, douane, Liby, yawn.
Sorry, Bruce. I meant al-Absi and Fatah al-Islam. Mistaken identity. I'm sure you can understand. The devil is in the details.
Are you resting Greg's case? Bailiff, remove this ennuyance.
And get that grenade launcher out of here, too. It's a positive hazard.
Is Jon jealous or demonstrating a need?
To burn off a little energy, and do yourself some good, review G's 7/21/03 post about Sadr.
p. luk, got anything to say about Val Plame's memo?
Or about Sadr re-surfacing in Iraq? Bruce?
Hiya, G. Visiting hours over at the hospital? Have you seen the Plame memo? Comey is responsible for giving Fitzgerald the powers that loosed that witch hunt.
The New York Times and Jules Crittendon have interesting speculation about Sadr's move. Many pray he is maturing into his father's shoes. Why do none of the news accounts mention Sistani, who I think is driving this Muslim rapprochement. Everyone wants to blame US/Iran talks.
So what did Foley know in Jordan?
In 2002, p. luk., a clue.
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder!
Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance?
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
